By Sue-Ann Wayow
ALMOST a year has passed since four men died at Paria Fuel Trading Company Ltd facilities and the company has yet to implement specific methodologies to ensure that such an incident does not occur again.
This is according to Paria’s Health and Safety Executive Coordinator Paul Yearwood who gave evidence on Day 13 of the Commission of Enquiry (CoE) evidentiary hearings on Thursday.
Almost to the end of his testimony, Yearwood was asked by Commissioner Gregory Wilson about lessons learnt and strategies implemented by Paria since the incident.
According to Wilson, Paria has not yet been stringent enough in its improvement processes regarding
He said, “What I am not hearing powerfully or not seeing powerfully or not getting from Paria powerfully are any known industry processes that would adequately robustly capture lessons where they can be implemented, interrogated going forward.”
Wilson added, “All I am just hearing is we did A, B, C, D but there is nothing that I am convinced… and it is quite relevant for the chairman and I when considering our recommendations. I don’t want to do dual work. So I am quite keen in your capacity as an HSE professional what methodologies were employed to get that?”
Yearwood answered, “We have not formally gone through any specific methodology.”
Yearwood earlier stated that a review process of the methodology statement related to the job to be conducted by LMCS was done but he was not aware if that process consisted of the contractor. That process would have entailed a meeting with both LMCS and Paria.
LMCS attorney Kamini Persaud-Maraj told Yearwood that such a meeting between both Paria and LMCS did not occur.
It was later revealed that Yearwood himself was not present at the meeting and he could not say if LMCS attended.
Persaud-Maraj said, “My instructions are in fact, that the mechanism and procedure by which the review was done was LMCS was asked to email their documents to Mr Terrence Rampersadsingh and then those documents meaning the method statements and the JHAs and other company documents would have been reviewed, however, it was reviewed by your team and then the approval of it notified to LMCS. What say you?”
But Yearwood said, “That is not the process we use at Paria.”
He was asked to repeat his statement and Persaud-Maraj further asked for what actually occurred.
Yearwood said, “There would have been a meeting.”
Persaud-Maraj then showed a trail of emails between LMCS and Paria prior to February 25, 2022.
Yearwood said, “I presumed that the meeting would have been held before this review would have been made. There must be a basis for the review.”
CoE’s chair Jerome Lynch, KC, also further asked if there was an actual meeting held between LMCS and Paria.
He also asked if there was any evidence such as a meeting note, text message or other that an LMCS representative was present at that review process meeting to which Yearwood responded “no.”
Lynch asked if it may be right to say that the contractor was not involved in such a meeting.
Yearwood said, “It would be very odd. This is a standard process that we use for all jobs.”
He also said that all meetings were via video.
Lynch asked if Yearwood could rule out the prospect of the meeting occurring without the contractor.
However, Yearwood declined to say and upon being pressed by Lynch, he said he would not be able to completely rule it out.
Wilson asked about the purpose of that particular meeting.
Yearwood said, “It is there to bridge the gap between Paria, letting the contractor know what their risks are and the contractor letting Paria know what their risks are.”
Wilson said, “I like the phrase you use, bridge the gap.”
He asked about the documents produced from those types of meetings.
Yearwood said the documents would be the revision of the other documents being reviewed.
Wilson asked about the use of bridging documents and if it was the practice of Paria to use those documents but Yearwood said it was not the practice at the time.
Wilson then asked, “So how do you effectively bridge the gap if you don’t use a bridging document and or equivalent?”
Yearwood then said, “I understand what you are saying. It is something that will be considered.”
